Laquan McDonald. Freddie Gray. Tamir Rice. These are but a few names of unarmed black individuals who have died at the hands of police officers in cities across the U.S. And the list keeps growing.
Not only have such high-profile shootings questioned police aggression toward people of color, but they also have increased scrutiny on the use of taxpayer dollars to protect civilians. Every new policy change, especially those inspired by the shootings — whether to require law-enforcement officers to wear body cameras or outfit them with military-grade equipment, for instance — imposes significant financial implications for city governments.
In recent years, shrinking police-protection budgets have challenged local city officials to maintain or improve law-enforcement effectiveness with fewer resources. Even with help from state financing, cities foot much of the bill for public safety. Add to the tab the rising cost of settling police-misconduct cases, and creativity becomes a must.
In light of such events, WalletHub assessed how efficiently the 104 most populated U.S. cities spend public funds on police protection. We did so by calculating each city’s ROI on law-enforcement spending based on crime rates and per-capita expenditures on police forces. The results, as well as expert commentary and a detailed methodology, can be found below.
Main Findings
|
Adjusted ROI Rank |
City |
Crime Rate |
Per-Capita Spending |
Unadjusted ROI Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Akron, OH | 5.94% (69) | $224 (7) | 10 |
| 2 | Dayton, OH | 6.87% (90) | $389 (66) | 68 |
| 3 | Springfield, MA | 5.59% (59) | $249 (15) | 15 |
| 4 | Syracuse, NY | 5.04% (47) | $388 (65) | 66 |
| 5 | Detroit, MI | 7.92% (97) | $547 (93) | 93 |
| 6 | Buffalo, NY | 6.42% (82) | $334 (45) | 45 |
| 7 | Cleveland, OH | 7.56% (93) | $479 (88) | 88 |
| 8 | Grand Rapids, MI | 4.26% (29) | $297 (26) | 27 |
| 9 | Birmingham, AL | 8.45% (100) | $414 (73) | 76 |
| 10 | Rochester, NY | 6.30% (80) | $473 (87) | 87 |
| 11 | Louisville, KY | 4.89% (43) | $158 (1) | 2 |
| 12 | Fresno, CA | 5.63% (62) | $382 (64) | 62 |
| 13 | El Paso, TX | 2.85% (8) | $225 (8) | 7 |
| 14 | Baton Rouge, LA | 6.29% (79) | $301 (29) | 29 |
| 15 | Indianapolis, IN | 6.78% (87) | $242 (11) | 13 |
| 16 | Kansas City, KS | 5.72% (65) | $328 (42) | 43 |
| 17 | Pittsburgh, PA | 4.18% (27) | $294 (25) | 24 |
| 18 | Worcester, MA | 4.47% (32) | $226 (9) | 8 |
| 19 | Montgomery, AL | 6.16% (74) | $267 (19) | 21 |
| 20 | New Orleans, LA | 4.59% (34) | $399 (69) | 69 |
| 21 | Philadelphia, PA | 4.86% (42) | $397 (68) | 67 |
| 22 | Lubbock, TX | 6.00% (71) | $256 (17) | 17 |
| 23 | Lexington, KY | 4.78% (39) | $158 (1) | 1 |
| 24 | Mobile, AL | 5.33% (54) | $316 (37) | 38 |
| 25 | Columbus, GA | 6.25% (77) | $251 (16) | 16 |
| 26 | Dallas, TX | 5.05% (48) | $305 (30) | 30 |
| 27 | Tulsa, OK | 6.21% (76) | $243 (12) | 12 |
| 28 | Hialeah, FL | 3.43% (15) | $413 (72) | 71 |
| 29 | Cincinnati, OH | 7.11% (91) | $495 (89) | 90 |
| 30 | Fort Wayne, IN | 4.07% (26) | $228 (10) | 9 |
| 31 | Providence, RI | 5.12% (50) | $461 (82) | 82 |
| 32 | Milwaukee, WI | 6.34% (81) | $470 (86) | 86 |
| 33 | Miami, FL | 6.55% (84) | $539 (92) | 92 |
| 34 | Modesto, CA | 6.29% (78) | $306 (31) | 33 |
| 35 | Knoxville, TN | 7.65% (95) | $375 (60) | 64 |
| 36 | Warren, MI | 3.35% (13) | $299 (27) | 26 |
| 37 | Lincoln, NE | 4.25% (28) | $171 (3) | 3 |
| 38 | San Antonio, TX | 6.49% (83) | $263 (18) | 19 |
| 39 | Wichita, KS | 6.20% (75) | $245 (14) | 14 |
| 40 | Spokane, WA | 9.38% (103) | $279 (22) | 25 |
| 41 | Shreveport, LA | 5.64% (63) | $365 (57) | 58 |
| 42 | Norfolk, VA | 5.19% (53) | $280 (23) | 22 |
| 43 | Phoenix, AZ | 4.73% (37) | $347 (47) | 46 |
| 44 | Houston, TX | 5.94% (68) | $358 (51) | 55 |
| 45 | Omaha, NE | 5.18% (52) | $244 (13) | 11 |
| 46 | Reno, NV | 3.74% (21) | $321 (40) | 37 |
| 47 | Richmond, VA | 5.03% (46) | $446 (79) | 79 |
| 48 | Corpus Christi, TX | 5.16% (51) | $268 (21) | 20 |
| 49 | Greensboro, NC | 4.93% (45) | $351 (49) | 48 |
| 50 | Stockton, CA | 6.65% (85) | $410 (71) | 74 |
| 51 | Salt Lake City, UT | 8.13% (99) | $346 (46) | 50 |
| 52 | Nashville, TN | 5.41% (55) | $314 (36) | 36 |
| 53 | Garland, TX | 3.92% (24) | $212 (6) | 6 |
| 54 | Memphis, TN | 8.06% (98) | $503 (91) | 91 |
| 55 | Des Moines, IA | 5.45% (57) | $317 (38) | 40 |
| 56 | Oklahoma City, OK | 6.86% (89) | $308 (33) | 34 |
| 57 | Little Rock, AR | 9.38% (104) | $309 (34) | 41 |
| 58 | Bakersfield, CA | 5.53% (58) | $307 (32) | 32 |
| 59 | Durham, NC | 5.09% (49) | $358 (51) | 51 |
| 60 | Arlington, TX | 4.49% (33) | $267 (19) | 18 |
| 61 | Atlanta, GA | 7.91% (96) | $457 (81) | 84 |
| 62 | Las Vegas, NV | 3.92% (25) | $318 (39) | 35 |
| 63 | Saint Paul, MN | 4.81% (41) | $418 (74) | 73 |
| 64 | Sacramento, CA | 4.93% (44) | $402 (70) | 70 |
| 65 | Denver, CO | 4.33% (30) | $363 (55) | 54 |
| 66 | Portland, OR | 5.61% (60) | $332 (43) | 44 |
| 67 | Raleigh, NC | 3.70% (20) | $299 (27) | 28 |
| 68 | Fort Worth, TX | 4.81% (40) | $347 (47) | 47 |
| 69 | Jacksonville, FL | 4.74% (38) | $360 (54) | 52 |
| 70 | Albuquerque, NM | 6.12% (73) | $363 (55) | 57 |
| 71 | Aurora, CO | 3.41% (14) | $332 (43) | 42 |
| 72 | Madison, WI | 3.64% (19) | $359 (53) | 49 |
| 73 | Colorado Springs, CO | 4.60% (35) | $292 (24) | 23 |
| 74 | Austin, TX | 5.63% (61) | $376 (61) | 61 |
| 75 | Minneapolis, MN | 5.95% (70) | $451 (80) | 81 |
| 76 | Mesa, AZ | 3.53% (17) | $379 (62) | 60 |
| 77 | Santa Ana, CA | 2.62% (4) | $435 (76) | 75 |
| 78 | Charlotte, NC | 4.68% (36) | $370 (58) | 59 |
| 79 | Tacoma, WA | 7.15% (92) | $379 (62) | 65 |
| 80 | Kansas City, MO | 6.79% (88) | $467 (85) | 85 |
| 81 | Baltimore, MD | 6.07% (72) | $598 (98) | 100 |
| 82 | San Diego, CA | 2.78% (6) | $313 (35) | 31 |
| 83 | Riverside, CA | 3.89% (23) | $440 (77) | 78 |
| 84 | Boston, MA | 3.74% (22) | $502 (90) | 89 |
| 85 | Chesapeake, VA | 3.13% (10) | $176 (4) | 4 |
| 86 | Anaheim, CA | 3.29% (12) | $392 (67) | 63 |
| 87 | Virginia Beach, VA | 2.79% (7) | $202 (5) | 5 |
| 88 | Tampa, FL | 3.45% (16) | $612 (99) | 99 |
| 89 | Los Angeles, CA | 2.75% (5) | $594 (97) | 96 |
| 90 | Oakland, CA | 8.59% (101) | $560 (94) | 97 |
| 91 | Seattle, WA | 5.69% (64) | $357 (50) | 53 |
| 92 | Long Beach, CA | 3.58% (18) | $582 (96) | 95 |
| 93 | Yonkers, NY | 1.86% (1) | $462 (83) | 80 |
| 94 | Saint Louis, MO | 8.68% (102) | $787 (102) | 103 |
| 95 | Saint Petersburg, FL | 5.92% (67) | $566 (95) | 94 |
| 96 | New York, NY | 2.36% (3) | $614 (100) | 98 |
| 97 | Orlando, FL | 7.63% (94) | $675 (101) | 101 |
| 98 | San Jose, CA | 3.28% (11) | $324 (41) | 39 |
| 99 | San Francisco, CA | 5.45% (56) | $464 (84) | 83 |
| 100 | Anchorage, AK | 4.35% (31) | $419 (75) | 72 |
| 101 | Huntington Beach, CA | 2.97% (9) | $440 (77) | 77 |
| 102 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 6.73% (86) | $800 (103) | 102 |
| 103 | Fremont, CA | 2.09% (2) | $374 (59) | 56 |
| 104 | Washington, DC | 5.81% (66) | $910 (104) | 104 |
Ask the Experts
For city officials, maintaining public safety is often a balancing act between great leadership and budgeting creativity. This has been especially applicable for many cities since the economic downturn, with police departments having little choice but to do more with less. For additional insight, we asked a panel of experts to weigh in on various issues concerning how police departments are run with residents’ tax dollars. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:
- What makes some city police departments more effective than others?
- How can residents know whether their tax dollars are being used wisely on public safety?
- How have city police budgets fared in the recession and economic recovery?
- Should cities adjust spending on police based on crime rates or some other metric?
- Do investments in military-grade police equipment help create safer cities or exacerbate latent tensions?
- Are we better off having the majority of police officers carry lethal versus exclusively non-lethal weapons?
Ask the Experts
Assistant Professor of Public Affairs and Administration, University of Kansas
Read More
Research Director, Crime Lab New York, University of Chicago
Read More
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, SUNY- Buffalo State
Read More
Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Program Manager of the Leadership Education for Public Safety Program, Portland State University
Read More
Professorial Lecturer, Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, American University
Read More
Methodology
In order to measure police-spending efficiency in the face of budgetary constraints and public scrutiny, WalletHub ranked the 104 most populated U.S. cities by dividing its total safety rate (100 percent minus property- and violent-crime rates) by police spending per capita. It is important to underline the fact that “efficiency” is different from “overall safety,” which does not account for spending rates.
To control for major cross-city differences in the economic status of cities, we adjusted police-spending levels by three key economic factors: poverty rate, unemployment rate and median household income. The adjusted “Per-Capita Police Spending” measure assumes all cities have an average for each of the three factors. This allowed us to compare return on investment (ROI) of police spending net of cross-city differences in these key economic indicators.
With regard to our sample, please note that “city” refers to city proper and excludes surrounding metro areas. All data used for our calculations were from fiscal year 2012.
Adjusted vs. Unadjusted Rankings
For the ranking table in the “Main Findings” section above, please note that “Adjusted ROI Rank” reflects the results of our analysis after controlling for the three economic factors, whereas “Unadjusted ROI Rank” reflects the results before normalizing the data by the same factors.
Sources: Data used to create these rankings were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
WalletHub experts are widely quoted. Contact our media team to schedule an interview.